Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) : I congratulate my right hon. and
learned Friend on managing to establish cross-party support for
privatisation in the form that he has outlined--employee buy-outs and
participation--but will he say something about how his plans will affect
the growth of competition in the industry, which is vital to improve
services for the customer?

Mr. Rifkind : Under existing arrangements, the Scottish Bus Group,
which owns all the companies that we are to privatise, if not a monopoly,
is in a very dominant position. The replacement of that group by no fewer
than 10 or 11 separate companies, each of which will compete with existing
private sector companies and public transport companies, including the soon
to be privatised PTC in Grampian, will undoubtedly give a substantial boost
to real choice and real competition, very much to the benefit of the
travelling public.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Can we have an assurance that the highway
hoodlum, Mr. Souter of Stagecoach, will not be allowed to buy any part of
the Scottish Bus Group? Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that
Mr. Souter dumped nearly 50 buses in the bus station in Keswick, having
bought Cumberland Motor Services earlier this year? In effect, he blockaded
the town to tourists and cost shopkeepers in my constituency millions of
pounds because of his foolish actions, which he took only because the
planning authorities refused to give him a planning permission? Is that the
kind of man who will be allowed to run the Scottish bus industry in the
future?

Mr. Rifkind : If Stagecoach makes proposals for the acquisition of
any of these companies, they will be considered in the same way as
proposals from any other applicant.

Column 717

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : What evidence does the Secretary
of State have for his statement a few moments ago that employees of the
Tayside public transport company support privatisation of that company?
There is no such support among workers in the Strathtay company. There is
simply a recognition that they would prefer a management-employee buy-out
to a takeover by a cash-rich predator from the south. Will the Secretary of
State help those workers by giving them an assurance that, if their
management-employee bid is realistic and commensurate with the value of the
public assets involved, he will accept it and not sell out to a higher
bidder elsewhere?

Mr. Rifkind : I have already explained the basis on which bids will
be considered. I have said that, subject to these general criteria, we want
to give preference to employee and management buy-outs. I cannot at the
moment anticipate what the difference might be between proposals from the
management and employees and from other applicants. We will apply exactly
the same criteria as the regional council of which the hon. Gentleman was
once a member.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : I congratulate my right hon.
and learned Friend on this announcement. Does he agree that, by breaking
down the 3,000 buses into 11 units, he has avoided the predatory pricing
which could have arisen? The likely outcome of my right hon. and learned
Friend's proposals is an increase in services to rural areas, not a
decrease. What plans does he have for privatisation of depots?

Mr. Rifkind : Depots are part of the individual companies and will
be privatised as part of the larger privatisation. There were some
suggestions from certain quarters about whether it would be desirable to
privatise individual depots. We have to bear in mind the likely viability
of a depot. It is probably in the interests of employees and all who use
these services for us to use the companies to which I have referred as the
units on which privatisation is based.

Mr. Bob McTaggart (Glasgow, Central) : The Secretary of State has
said more than once that it is unacceptable for subsidised routes to be the
same as unsubsidised ones. It is often the case, however--especially with
the Scottish Bus Group--that subsidised routes are partly the same as
unsubsidised ones. That fact has been reported to the traffic
commissioners, who have found in favour of the private sector. Can we have
an assurance that the same strict criteria will not apply to Caledonian
MacBrayne or to any subsidised ferry routes to the islands, bearing in mind
the severity of what could happen as a result?

Mr. Rifkind : As the hon. Gentleman knows, with regard to ferries,
at Gourock-Dunoon there are two routes that are identical, for all
practical purposes. The terminals are a few hundred yards apart on both
sides of the route, and that is the point that I was making. I was saying
not that there would be a law to prevent that, but that as a matter of
policy it seemed an unnecessary use of public money to provide a subsidy so
that such a situation could continue. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bus
services. I share his view that it is not desirable in principle for a
subsidy to be used to enable a company to compete

Column 718

effectively with another that is not
subsidised. We shall have to find a way in which such abuses--if they are
abuses--can be resolved properly.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : Will the Secretary
of State accept that his statement, insofar as it concerns the Borders
region, will be warmly welcomed, for two reasons? First, Lowland Scottish
will be offered for sale as a free-standing entity. Secondly, his comments
about the provisions for employee participation will be welcomed. That
reflects the broadly based representations that were made by the trade
unions, the local authorities and my right hon. Friend the Member for
Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). Will the Secretary of State
now return to the question of the financial assistance that will be
available to management-employee teams? He would help them to prepare their
bid better if he gave more explanation about the financial assistance
involved.

Mr. Rifkind : I am grateful for that welcome for the terms of my
statement. In reply to the second part of the question, we envisage that we
may be able to give--although we cannot quantify it--financial assistance
to employees and managers who are contemplating a bid. That financial
assistance will enable them to obtain professional advice on how to put
together a proposal, what is required to make a credible proposal and what
the parameters should be, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged through
lack of experience in the necessary mechanics for competing with companies
or others who may wish to put in a bid.

The second form of assistance will apply to the time when the bids are
being considered from the various applicants. We have said, although we
cannot yet quantify it, that we shall give preference to management-
employee buy-outs. The scale of that preference has yet to be determined.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : When is the first unit of the
Scottish Bus Group likely to be privatised? I congratulate my right hon.
and learned Friend on his emphasis on employee participation in the
privatisation of the group. Does he accept that many regard that emphasis
as the acceptable side of devolution in Scotland? As a former convener of
Aberdeen municipal transport committee, I congratulate the Socialists of
Aberdeen on securing the objective that I failed to achieve--privatisation
of that service.

Mr. Rifkind : I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's generous compliment
to his one-time political opponents. I am sure that he never expected to
live to see the day when the Socialists of Aberdeen would join those of
other parties in support of privatising the local bus service.

I cannot give a specific timing for these disposals, but the Transport
(Scotland) Bill, which provides for the flotation, is to be tabled today
and, subject to Parliament's approval, we hope that the necessary
legislation will be enacted during the current Session.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : Does the
Secretary of State recall his weasel words about rural routes at the time
of deregulation? Is he aware that many communities in my constituency have
lost services, particularly at the weekends and at off-peak times? It is no
use for him to rabbit on about route mileage when all the buses are running
on the same urban routes,

Column 719

with different operators. We want to talk
about rural routes. Can the Secretary of State give any guarantee that
services will not be decimated under privatisation as they were at the time
of deregulation?

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are
two relevant points here. First, route mileage by bus services in Scotland
has gone up since deregulation.

Mr. Foulkes : I said that.

Mr. Rifkind : There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to become
apoplectic. The route mileage has gone up, not down. If the hon. Gentleman
becomes upset when I agree with him, God knows what he will be like when I
disagree with him.

As he knows, Strathclyde regional council is perfectly able to provide
public funds to support the continuation of routes that individual
companies do not want to provide. The regional council is the appropriate
authority to decide whether there is a social need for a bus service on a
particular route.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : As far as Caledonian
MacBrayne is concerned, will the Secretary of State accept my welcome for
80 per cent. of his statement, which represents retreat? Perhaps in this
context we can magnanimously and temporarily forgive him the 20 per cent.
that is an ideological figleaf. Will he confirm that his rather patronising
remarks about value for money do not suggest a further cut in the CalMac
subsidy? Will he accept that a move to Oban should be a matter for debate
rather than diktat?

Will the Secretary of State accept that, if the status quo is not an option
for buses, an employee buy-out is the best means of common ownership, which
will maintain jobs, standards and services? Will he assist that option with
substance, rather than mere hope? Will he note our apprehension about
predatory bids and will he note that there are plenty of Scottish cowboys,
some of them on board stagecoaches?

Mr. Rifkind : I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box for
his maiden appearance. I am glad that he has used the occasion to welcome
the Government's statement--or at least 80 per cent. of it. I hope that
that is a useful precedent that he will follow in the weeks and months to
come.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the level of subsidy for Caledonian
MacBrayne. Naturally, we shall ensure that the subsidy is at the level
required to ensure a lifeline to the islands and that the good quality of
service that there has been--particularly in the past nine years--is
maintained.

As for employee buy-outs, the hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say on the
matter and I am glad that he too seems to be joining those who, under
certain conditions, are delighted to welcome privatisation.

Column 720

Prime Minister's Statement

4.26 pm

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) : On a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister abused Question
Time to make a statement on the extradition of Father Patrick Ryan. She
said :

"The failure to secure Ryan's arrest is a matter of very grave concern to
the Government. It is no use Governments adopting great declarations and
commitments about fighting terrorism if they then lack the resolve to put
them into practice."--[ Official Report, 29 November 1988 ; Vol. 142,

c. 574.]

That is quite right. We wish that the Prime Minister would follow the
example of her own words. The basis of the Prime Minister's claim is that
the warrant was sent to Dublin, with additional documentation, on Friday
night. We now know from the Crown Prosecution Service that that was not the
case. The Prime Minister has misled the House. The Prime Minister also
failed to mention the dilatoriness of the Government in dealing with the
Ryan case. Ryan was arrested on 30 June, but the Government failed to serve
warrants until 5 September. On 25 November a decision was taken.
[Interruption.] It is a point of order. The Government obviously do
not like being taken to task when the Prime Minister misleads the House.

On 25 November the decision was taken that the Government would put forward
demands to the Irish Government, and the Irish Government were expected to
do in five minutes what the Belgian Government did not do in five months
and for which the British Government were responsible because of the delay
in issuing the warrants.

Mr. Speaker : With great respect, I cannot answer questions of that
kind.

Mr. McNamara : With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to a
point of order. The matters that I am describing are the background to it.
Has the Prime Minister asked you for an opportunity to come to the House to
apologise for deliberately misleading it on the issue of the warrants and--

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot allege
that any hon. Member or right hon. Member has deliberately misled the
House. He must withdraw that allegation. [Hon. Members :--
"Withdraw."] Withdraw the allegation, please-- [Interruption.]
Order. We had this unhappy business yesterday. I ask the hon. Gentleman to
withdraw that allegation, please.

Mr. McNamara : With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, before I was
interrupted by Conservative Members I was immediately going to withdraw
that remark if you had said so, because I respect you and the Chair, which
Conservative Members do not always seem to do. I was going to ask you, Mr.
Speaker, when we could expect the Prime Minister to apologise to the House
and what arrangements would be made--this is relevant to what happened
yesterday--to have the situation recorded properly in the Official Report.

Column 721

Mr. Speaker : What the hon. Gentleman has raised with me is news to
me. I am sure that what he has said will be noted on the Government Front
Bench, but it is not a matter of order for me.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon) : Following the precedent set in the case
of Patrick McVee, when I gave the Attorney-General my support, has the
right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for leave to make a statement on the
case of Patrick Ryan? Is not the Attorney-General's proper role to advise
the Government and the House, rather than to brief the press through his
minions? Would it not be more dignified for proper statements to be made to
the House by responsible Ministers, rather than for the Prime Minister to
abuse Question Time, so that we can have confirmation of what the Attorney-
General said on 14 June--whether it still exists or not--namely, that there
was a close and personal relationship between himself and his opposite
number in the Republic?

Mr. Speaker : I cannot answer that. Again, it is a matter for the
Attorney-General.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : I shall take all points of order, on this matter
together, because we have a busy day. I call Mr. Benn.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The
point of order that I wish to raise arises out of the exchange yesterday,
but is totally different in character. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East
(Mr. Mates), whom I put on notice that I would raise this matter, said :

"one of the most wanted terrorists has been let free".

In his question in relation to that case he then said : "many still believe
that the Irish Republic is a safe haven for some terrorists".

In response--I shall not quote it all--the Prime Minister said : "I
entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, although the Government of the
Republic of Ireland make fine-sounding speeches".--[ Official Report, 29
November 1988 ; Vol. 142, c.574-75.]

That question and the assent given to it by the Prime Minister raise two
points of order. First, legal proceedings have been taken by the Attorney-
General in the case of Father Ryan. As he is abroad, the legal proceedings
initiated here have been taken up in Belgium and the Republic. It has been
a long practice of the House, which you have rigidly enforced in respect of
"Spycatcher", where there was a case in Australia, and in the case of the
miners' strike, where miners were coming before the courts, that it was not
in order for Members of the House of Commons to confirm or to comment on
cases that were sub judice, because the process of bringing the case before
the court had begun . I hope--

Mr. Speaker : This case is not yet sub judice.

Mr. Benn : With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking you to
resolve today the case that I am putting to you, but legal proceedings have
begun, and in this context they are legal proceedings with a view to
bringing somebody before a court. If somebody was wanted by the police in
this country and was named in the House as if he had already been
convicted, I feel certain that you would interpret that as sub judice.

Column 722

Secondly, it is clearly a misuse of
privilege to use the protection of the House of Commons to make such an
allegation. Father Ryan is wanted on a serious charge. It could hardly be
more serious. It is in accordance with the practice of the British courts
that anyone charged is presumed innocent until convicted. Therefore, when a
senior Member of the House says, and it is confirmed by the Prime Minister,
that that person is a terrorist, it is impossible from that moment on for
that man to have a fair trial. The BBC broadcast those remarks and every
newspaper has highlighted them.

The reason why I draw this to your attention, Mr. Speaker--I make no
criticism of your conduct of business yesterday--is that the sub judice
rule and the self-limitation on privilege are to prevent the House of
Commons from becoming a lynch mob. In my submission, yesterday it became a
lynch mob, headed by the Prime Minister, whose remarks are bound to
prejudice any jury or judge if Father Ryan is brought to this country.

Finally, the reason why this is important is that, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said at Question Time, as a
result of the Guildford, Woolwich and Birmingham bombings, many people
abroad--this was confirmed by what the Prime Minister said yesterday--do
not believe that Irish prisoners get justice in British courts.

Mr. Speaker : I advise the right hon. Gentleman that this case is
not yet sub judice and I advise the House that every hon. Member must take
responsibility for what he says. As I have said before, we have freedom of
speech here, but it should be used with great caution. What the right hon.
Gentleman has said about any man being innocent until proved guilty is
absolutely correct.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that I should call the hon. Member for
Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates).

Mr. Michael Mates (Hampshire, East) : Further to that point of
order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield
(Mr. Benn) for the courtesy of telling me that he was going to raise this
matter. I used the phrase yesterday solely in the context of my outrage at
the fact that that person was not being brought here to face trial. It was
not intended to be an intimation of guilt. Strictly, I should have said,
"Ryan is the man the security forces most want in connection with serious
terrorist offences." I am happy to make that plain.

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : Further to that
point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that yesterday the Prime Minister
abused the proceedings of the House in the most disgraceful way imaginable.
Essentially, she made a statement during Question Time. I believe that her
motive was to grab the headlines from my hon. Friend the Member for
Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who slaughtered the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and the Government's economic policy. In her abuse of our
proceedings the Prime Minister raised the question of the extradition of
Father Ryan in the most politically insensitive way imaginable, because
that is a matter for the Attorney-General. The Prime Minister also
prevented hon. Members from properly questioning the Government on the mess
that they have got into on the question of warrants.

Column 723

My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is to
inquire whether, if the Attorney-General asks to make a statement at 7
o'clock this evening, you will look at that sympathetically.

Mr. Speaker : Of course I will.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. As we have a heavy day ahead of us, I ask hon.
Gentlemen whether these are points of order that I can deal with, because
so far, apart from that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr.
Benn), they are not really points of order for which I have responsibility.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : This is a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. The various points of order have raised what seems to us a
potential abuse of Question Time by the Prime Minister, who incorporated
into an answer what was, in effect, a statement. As you will recall, Mr.
Speaker, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) launched an
attack on two Governments--these are serious matters--and the Prime
Minister replied in kind. There was no opportunity for Opposition Members
to question her, as would be the case if a statement was made.

There is an alternative for you to consider, Mr. Speaker, because Standing
Order No. 17 states :

"No question shall be taken after half-past three o'clock, except questions
which have not appeared on the paper, but which are in Mr. Speaker's
opinion of an urgent character, and relate either to matters of public
importance or to the arrangement of business." That Standing Order relates
to private notice questions, but fits precisely the circumstances that you
could use, Mr. Speaker, if, in your opinion, the Prime Minister or any
other Minister abused his or her position. Ministers are in a powerful
position, because the media report the comments of the Prime Minister
carefully and closely. You know, Mr. Speaker, that if the Prime Minister is
determined to draw the spotlight away from the economic disaster of the
Chancellor and on to something else, she can do that.

As the Executive is accountable to the House, and you, as Mr. Speaker, are
the Chairman of the House, it seems to me that by using that Standing Order
you could state that because a matter is of an "urgent character" and
relates

"to matters of public importance"

as was clearly the case on this occasion, you could take questions about it
after 3.30 pm. Your willingness to be prepared to look at this would be a
useful reminder to the Government not to abuse this place as they so badly
and blatantly did yesterday.

I realise that the Standing Order gives you that right, but, according to
"Erskine May", precedents require you generally to receive an application
for a private notice question before 12 o'clock. That is not part of our
Standing Orders. It is simply a convention which, if you wished, you could
change. I suggest that you reflect on my suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and make
a statement--as is customary for the Speaker--so that Mr. Speaker is given
a little more elbow room and a little more ability to make a decision when,
in his judgment, the Government are seriously abusing this place. We should
all be opposed to that.

Mr. Speaker : I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. The
trouble with open questions at Prime Minister's Question Time is that
nobody in the House,

Column 724

least of all the Speaker, knows the question
that will be asked or the answer that will be given. I cannot divine that
sort of thing. It is true that this matter was in the minds of many hon.
Members yesterday. I shall certainly reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has
said.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : Further to that point of order,
Mr. Speaker. So that we can put into context today's protests by Opposition
Members, can you confirm that if, yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition
had thought that this was an important subject and had stood up on Question
No. 4, you would have called him?

Mr. Speaker : By tradition, when the Leader of the Opposition stands
up he is called.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Earlier this afternoon the Press Association tapes were quoting Government
sources as admitting that the warrants issued in respect of Father Ryan
were defective. It seems extraordinary that in Dublin the Attorney-General
is giving advice very freely indeed. The Attorney-General seems to be
briefing the British media very freely. The Prime Minister is criticising
the Belgians and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it seems
that the guilty party is the bungling British Attorney-General, who cannot
at this late stage get these warrants right. It is extraordinary that he is
not even in the Chamber to listen to these points of order.

Could you arrange for the Attorney-General to report and account to the
House on why he has been unable to issue correct warrants in respect of
Father Ryan? That clearly lies at the heart of this matter. It is the
Attorney-General's responsibility to account for the office that he holds,
and he also has a responsibility to the House.

Mr. Speaker : I have not had the advantage of seeing the tapes, but
I pick up the hon. Gentleman's general proposition. If it is true--I do not
know whether it is--that the press has been briefed, in my judgment the
House should also be briefed.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South) : May I proffer a
suggestion, Mr. Speaker, which you may care to think about overnight on the
matter of warrants and the sub judice rule? If the man has been accused and
charged in this country, of course, the sub judice rule applies. A warrant
is issued when a person is not within the jurisdiction of the court. If,
after that, at any time he comes into the jurisdiction of the court he
becomes the subject matter of the charge to which the warrant relates.
Would it not be sensible, when you review these matters--I do not require
an answer today, but perhaps a statement could be made--
[Interruption.] I apologise for the bad manners of Conservative
Members. When you, Mr. Speaker, and those who advise you have had time to
consider my suggestion, perhaps a statement could be made, or the rules
slightly changed so that they cover either the moment when the man is
charged or when a warrant is issued against him in this country.

Mr. Speaker : A change in the sub judice rule would be a matter for
the House, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks through what he and other hon.
Members have been saying, he may feel that the House would wish further to
debate the whole matter. At the moment the matter is not sub judice.

Column 725

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : Further to that point of order,
Mr. Speaker. My point is based on what you said a few moments ago. We
appreciate your comment that if the press has been briefed the House should
be briefed and, as you would expect, we go along with that. The Leader of
the House is in the Chamber and the support that you will get from the
Government will perhaps be demonstrated by the way in which they respond to
the clear injunction from you that there should be a statement. May I,
through you, ask the Leader of the House if he will talk to his colleagues
to ensure that we have a statement at 7 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker : Let us leave that matter, because I have a statement
to make.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Column 726

Proceedings of the House

Mr. Speaker : I have been reflecting upon yesterday's debate on the
Queen's Speech. It has been represented to me by several right hon. and
hon. Members that there was an attempt to disrupt the opening speeches by
co-ordinated interruptions. I hope that that was not the case and that it
will never be the case. I entirely accept that there should be cut and
thrust in debate in the House and, on occasions, interventions, but not
organised interruptions, which are a very different matter. Furthermore, I
hope that personal allegations against hon. Members will not be raised
again in the way that they were raised yesterday.

The House, in its wisdom, long ago laid down a proper procedure for
pursuing complaints about these matters. In relation to what was alleged
yesterday, and in order to clear up the matter without any equivocation,
perhaps it would be right for me to read to the House once again what was
said yesterday, because the letter read out by the hon. Member for
Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was not addressed to me. It was a letter to
him, not to me.

The hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) drew attention to what he
thought had been a "fiddling of the record". He asked me to confirm

"that the record had in fact been changed"

and that I had apologised. The hon. Gentleman said :

"The assurance that I now seek from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East
is"

whether it was or not. I said :

"I subsequently looked into the matter and I had an assurance from the
Editor of Hansard that no alteration was made at the specific request of
the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). It was a mistake in the
Hansard reporting."

I went on to confirm :

"The mistake was not the mistake of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East."
--[ Official Report, 29 November 1988 ; Vol. 142, c. 583.] I hope
that that puts the matter into its proper perspective.

Mr. Tim Yeo (Suffolk, South) : I am glad to have an opportunity of
accepting unreservedly your guidance and ruling about the manner in which
personal allegations should be made in the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Would it be in any way impertinent to ask you, as you have understandably
dealt very toughly and quickly with some of us on other matters, why
yesterday, knowing the background, and with all the information that was
available to you, you did not call to order the Parliamentary Private
Secretary to the Home Secretary? Some of us feel that if we had tried to do
what the Home Secretary's PPS did we would have been shut up, with short
shrift, and rightly, by you, Mr. Speaker. Why did that not happen
yesterday?